Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AIMFP

AIMFP

by aryanduntley
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_current_progress

Read-onlyIdempotent

Query project status by scope and detail level. Replace multiple helper calls with one flexible query for tasks, milestones, files, and more.

Instructions

Single entry point for scoped project status queries. Replaces 5-10 separate helper calls with one flexible query.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_current_progress"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scopeNoWhat to retrieve: 'tasks', 'milestones', 'completion_paths', 'files', 'functions', 'flows', 'themes', 'infrastructure', 'all'
detail_levelNoHow much detail: 'minimal', 'standard', 'full'standard
filtersNoWHERE-like conditions: {field: value} or {field: {operator: value}}

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.37.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety profile is clear. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that, not addressing potential behaviors like pagination, rate limits, or response size.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, highly concise and front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: first states purpose, second quantifies benefit. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the parameter count and lack of output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's role as a consolidated query. However, it doesn't specify the return format or structure, which would help the agent anticipate the response.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds little extra meaning beyond 'scoped' and 'flexible query', which aligns with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it's a single entry point for scoped project status queries, replacing multiple helper calls. It distinguishes from siblings by positioning itself as a consolidated query tool, though it doesn't explicitly name which siblings it replaces.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for broad overviews instead of multiple specific calls, but lacks explicit when-not conditions or alternatives. Without guidance on when to use specific getters instead, the agent has to infer usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools